f^Hyi 


\i\h 


Elji  Asada 


The  Hebrev;  Text   of   Zecharish  1-8 


BSI6G5 
.2.A79 


"SI 


^5?  ^^m'j 


Cm 


■''  ■^j'''- 

MAR    IVIOGO    ** 


THE  HEBREW  TEXT 


OF 


ZECHARIAH  i-8 


COMPARED    WITH    THE    DIFFERENT    ANCIENT 
VERSIONS 


BY 

EIJI  ASADA 

TOKYO,  JAPAN 


CHICAGO 

Zbc  xanlversitp  of  Cbicago  press 

1896 


THE  HEBREW  TEXT 


OP 


ZECHARIAH  i-8 


COMPARED    WITH    THE    DIFFERENT    ANCIENT 
VERSIONS 


BY, 
EIJI  ASADA 

TOKYO,  JAPAN 


CHICAGO 

Zbc  XHnivetsttp  ot  CbtcaQO  press 

1896 


A    DISSERTATION    PRESENTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE 

GRADUATE   SCHOOL  OF   ARTS    AND    LITERATURE  OF   THE   UNIVERSITY 

OF    CHICAGO,    MAY    1,    1893,    IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE 

DEGREE   OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 


[Reprinted  from  The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and 
Literatures,  Vol.  XII.,  Nob.  3  and  4.    Chicago,  111.] 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Introduction.    --------  5 

Literature.              ---....  g 

Variations  in  General.           ------  6 

Variations  due  presumably  to  the  Translators.           -            -  8 

Variations  due  presumably  to  the  MSS.     -            -            -            -  19 

Variations  of  Doubtful  Origin.      -        -            -            -            -  25 


THE  HEBREW  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH  1-8,  COMPARED 
WITH  THE  DIFFERENT  ANCIENT  VERSIONS. 

By  Eiji  Asada,  Ph.D., 

Professor  of  Old  Testament  Literature  in  the  Aoyama  Methodist  Seminary, 
Tokyo,  Japan. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  purpose  of  this  thesis  is  to  compare  the  Hebrew  text  of 
the  first  eight  chapters  of  Zechariah  with  the  ancient  versions, 
and  to  examine  the  variations  presented  in  the  versions.  In  the 
presentation  of  the  results,  I  have  received  suggestions  from 
Workman's  The  Text  of  Jeremiah,  and  from  Patterson's  The 
Sepiuagint  Text  of  Rosea.  But  I  have  tried,  as  far  as  possible, 
to  consider  the  nature  of  every  variation  more  carefully  than 
Workman  did,  and  to  classify  the  variations  more  logically  than 
Patterson.  It  is  not  the  purpose  to  write  a  commentary  on  the 
book  or  notes  upon  the  text,  but  simply  and  concisely  to  pre- 
sent the  variations  in  the  different  versions  and  classify  them 
according  to  their  probable  origin.  Consequently  there  is  no 
attempt  made  to  explain  all  technical  names  and  expressions  com- 
mon in  the  works  of  textual  criticism. 

The  mo^t  important  of  all  the  versions  is  the  Septuagint,  and 
I  have  examined  it  more  carefully  than  any  other  version.  The 
LXX.  of  Zech.  1-8  seems  to  be  the  work  of  one  man,  per- 
haps different  from  the  translator  of  the  remaining  chapters  of 
the  book.  The  translation  is  a  very  careful  and  excellent  presen- 
tation of  the  original.  But  it  is  less  literal  than  the  LXX.  trans- 
lation of  other  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  presents  many 
interesting  variations.  There  are  cases  of  suggestive  additions, 
of  careless  omissions,  of  free  paraphrase,  and  of  unintelligible 
translation.  The  next  in  importance  is  the  Vulgate,  which  gives 
a  very  accurate  and  faithful  translation  of  Zech.  1-8,  and  con- 

5 


6  The  Text  of  Zechaeiah  1-8 

tains  fewer  variations  than  the  LXX.,  the  Peshitto  or  the  Targum. 
Therefore,  it  seems  that  the  MSS.  used  by  the  Latin  translator 
were  not  much  different  from  the  MSS.  underlying  the  present 
Massoretic  text.  The  Targum  Jonathan  of  these  chapters,  like 
all  other  Targumim,  is  full  of  paraphrases  and  interpretations. 
But  it  furnishes  many  important  suggestions,  and,  in  a  few  cases, 
gives  a  better  reading  than  that  of  the  Massoretic  text. 

The  Peshitto  of  Zech.  1-8  is  also  useful  for  textual  criticism. 
True  it  is  that  the  Syriac  translation  is,  in  general,  free,  obscure, 
and  inaccurate;  but  many  of  its  variations  are  to  be  accepted  in 
preference  to  the  Massoretic  text.  Besides  these  four  chief  ver- 
sions the  Arabic  version  has  been  consulted,  which  differs  but 
little  from  the  LXX.,  and  the  valuable  translations  by  literal 
Aquila,  cautious  Theodotion  and  clever  Symmachus. 

LITERATURE. 

For  the  constitution  of  the  text  the  following  books  and 
editions  have  been  used  and  consulted: 

Baer  and  Delitzsch's  edition  of  the  Hebrew  text,  Tischendorf  s  sixth 
edition  of  the  Septuagint,  and  the  texts  of  the  other  versions  as  found  in 
the  London  Polyglot,  Origen's  HexcqAa,  and  Stier-Theile's  Polyglot. 

Some  of  the  works  constantly  consulted  are: 

Driver's  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Books  of  Samuel. 
C.  H.  H.  Wright's  Zechariah  and  his  Prophecies. 
W.  H.   Lowe's  "Zechariah"   in  Ellicott's    O.    T.    Commentary   for 
English  Readers. 

A.  Kohler,  Die  W^eissagmigen  Sacharjas,  chap.  9-14,  Erlangen,  1861-2 

Hitzig-Steiner's  Die  zicolf  Kleinen  Propheten. 

T.  W.  Chambers'  "Zechariah"  in  Lange's  Commentary. 

Maurer's  Commentarius  in  Vetus  Testamentum. 

Driver's  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  O.  T. 

Keil's  Minor  Prophets. 

Briggs'  Messianic  Prophecy,  etc. 

For  the  sake  of  convenience  and  simplicity,  Syriac  and  Arabic 
words  are  written  in  ordinary  Hebrew  characters. 

VARIATIONS    IN    GENERAL. 

Variations  are  numerous,  interesting  and,  in  some  cases, 
extremely  peculiar.  There  are  many  cases  in  which  the  readings 
differ  in  respect  to  the  tense  of  a  verb.     For  instance,  the  trans- 


The  Text  of  Zechakiah  1-8  7 

lators  give  the  present  tense  for  the  past  (1:6  in  LXX.),  the 
past  for  the  future  (8:3,  in  Vulg.),  the  future  for  the  past  (7:13; 
8:10  in  LXX.),  the  future  for  the  present  (1:5  in  LXX.),  the 
present  for  ■'DSn  with  participle  (8:7  in  LXX.),  etc.  The  ver- 
sions present  also  a  few  changes  in  regard  to  the  person  and 
number  of  a  verbal  form;  e.  g.,  plural  for  singular  (2:17  in  Tar- 
gum),  3d  pers.  for  1st  pers.  (2:15  in  Pesh.),  1st  pers.  sing,  for 
3d  pers.  plur.  8:8  in  LXX,),  3d  pers.  plur.  for  1st  pers.  sing.  (2: 15 
in  LXX.),  etc.  It  may  be  noted  also  that  a  finite  verb  is  given 
for  a  participle  (1:8;  2:7  in  LXX.),  a  participle  for  a  finite  verb 
(2:17  in  Pesh.),  a  finite  verb  for  an  indefinite  (1:14,  17;  8:21  in 
Pesh.)  an  imperative  for  an  infinitive  (3:4  in  LXX.),  etc. 

Not  infrequently  the  translators  change  the  form  or  construc- 
tion of  a  noun,  violating  etymological  or  syntactical  principles  or 
disregarding  the  sense  of  the  passage  and  its  relation  to  the  con- 
text. The  genitive  is  translated  by  the  accusative  (1:17  in 
LXX.),  the  nominative  by  the  accusative  (7:2  in  LXX.,  Vulg., 
Targ.,  Pesh.),  the  accusative  by  the  nominative  (7:7  in  LXX., 
Vulg.,  Pesh.),  the  vocative  by  the  accusative  (2:11  in  LXX.), 
etc.  The  plural  is  given  in  translation  for  the  singular  in  the 
Hebrew  (4:12;  7:5  in  LXX.),  the  absolute  state  for  the  construct 
state  (7:9;  8:16  in  LXX.),  a  proper  noun  for  a  common  noun 
where  it  was  difficult  to  translate  (6:14  in  Vulg.,  Targ.),  a  com- 
mon noun  for  a  proper  noun  not  familiar  to  the  translator  (7:2 
in  LXX.,  Pesh.),  and  a  proper  noun  for  another  (5:11  in  LXX., 
Targ.,  Pesh.;  7:2  in  LXX.).  A  proper  noun  is  sometimes  mis- 
taken for  a  verbal  form  (6:10,  14  in  LXX.),  and  in  one  case  an 
untranslatable  foreign  word  is  translated,  and  that  of  course  inex- 
actly (5:6  in  LXX.). 

The  pronoun  also  suffers  from  various  changes.  For  instance, 
2d  pers.  is  given  for  3d  pers.  (3:8  in  Pesh.),  plural  for  singular 
(5:5  in  Targ.),  an  interrogative  pronoun  for  another  (5:5  in 
Targ.),  etc. 

In  one  instance  a  cardinal  number  is  rendered  by  an  ordinal 
(1:12  in  LXX.  and  Vulg.)  In  some  cases  one  part  of  speech 
is  given  for  another,  e.  g.,  a  finite  verb  for  a  noun  (1:3  in 
LXX.),  an  infinitive  for  a  noun  (4:7  in  LXX.),  a  noun  for 
a  verb   (7:3  in  LXX.),  etc.     The   form   of  a  sentence  is  often 


8  The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8 

changed,  e.  g.,  the  Hebrew  declarative  is  rendered  as  an  interrog- 
ative (1:6  in  Vulg.;  8:6  in  LXX.,  Vulg.,  Eng.,  Pesh.  [  ?]  ),  and 
vice  versa  the  interrogative  translated  as  a  declarative  (1:12  in 
Vulg.),  the  interrogative  is  turned  into  the  imperative  (1:6  in 
LXX.),  the  declarative  into  the  imperative  (6:8  in  Targ.),  etc. 

Besides  these,  there  are  a  great  many  more  difficult  and  per- 
plexing variations.  The  addition  and  omission  of  letters,  words, 
phrases,  and  sentences  is  very  common;  and  their  causes  are 
various.  We  find  also  a  few  inadequate  substitutions,  and,  in 
some  cases,  unnecessary  repetitions.  The  arrangement  of  letters 
and  words  is  often  changed,  and  a  new  construction  is  given. 
Inaccurate  or  free  translations  are  occasionally  given,  and  the 
readings  in  the  original  text  are  obscured. 

All  these  variations  may  be  classified  in  two  groups :  ( 1 )  Vari- 
ations due  to  the  translators,  and  (2)  variations  due  to  the 
mamtscripts.  In  the  first  division,  I  include  those  additions, 
omissions  and  variations  of  every  other  kind,  for  which  the  trans- 
lators are  responsible;  and  under  the  second  I  classify  those 
variations  which  existed  in  the  MSS.  used  by  the  translators,  those 
which  are  due  to  the  condition  of  the  MSS.,  and  those  which  had 
their  origin  after  the  work  of  translation  had  been  done;  (3) 
variations  of  donhtful  origin.  In  respect  to  some  variations,  I 
have  found  it  extremely  difficult  to  determine  to  which  class  they 
properly  belong.  It  seems  to  be  better  to  leave  such  variations 
unclassified  than  to  attempt  to  theorize  concerning  their  origin 
on  the  basis  of  mere  conjecture.  Therefore,  I  group  them  together 
under  a  third  head  as  doubtful  cases. 


I.       VARIATIONS    due    PRESUMABLY    TO    THE    TRANSLATORS. 

1.  Variations  arising  from  a  different  pointing. — For  nb!^123, 
(1:8)  LXX.  seems  to  have  read  Hb^'J^  with  Ddgesh  in  the  b, 
and  renders  twv  KaraaKcwv.  Pesh.  follows  this  and  translates 
'■pbbt2":21 .  Keil  says  that  ilb^I'p  is  the  form  for  "shady  place." 
Fiirst  compares  the  word  with  nSD  .  Bottcher  would  read  Jlblk'/J . 
But  Baer's  reading  Ubi*^^  (after  Kimchi)  seems  to  be  best,  and 
is   supported  by  the  Vulg.   "in  profundo."  —  For  niTb   (2:4) 

*  Wellhausen,  Kleine  Propheten,  p.  173 :  "  Die  Bedeutung  des  Wortes  ist  unbekannt," 


The  Text  op  Zechariah  1-8  9 

LXX.  reads  JTilTb  and  renders  ei's  x^P^?.  This  makes  the  passage 
meaningless. —  UTrl^'^'b  (2:13).  This  reading  is  supported  by 
the  LXX.,  ToT?  8ov\€vovaLv  aiTots;  Pesh.  reads  "irT'inS' .  But  Baer 
gives  the  correct  reading  DH^nni^'b  .—  For  ^Tl^  (4:13;  6:4)  LXX. 
reads  ""nj^ ,  but  the  reading  accepted  by  the  Mass.  Text,  Vulg., 
Targ.  and  Pesh.  is  to  be  preferred. —  For  iTSn  (7:3)  LXX.  reads 
"iTi'H  and  gives  to  dyLaa/xa  "the  holy  place." — For  tSSu'J  (7:9; 
8:"l6)  LXX.  reads  USaJ"^ .— For  Ta;5<  IS  (8:20)  Vulg.  reads  IV 
"la;>5  and  renders  "usquequo." 

2.  Variations  ai'ising  from  a  different  grouping  or  transpo- 
sition of  ivords. —  Some  of  the  variations  in  this  class  are  inten- 
tional changes  made  by  the  translators,  and  a  few  are  due  to  the 
corruption  of  the  text.  But  most  of  them  seem  to  be  due  to  the 
careless  and  hasty  work  of  the  translators. 

Li  1:5  Pesh.  connects  D^U^HDHI  with  the  preceding  sentence, 
and  destroys  the  beauty  of  the  Hebrew  parallelism. — Pesh.  places 
1'^7-iJ^''1  (1:11)  immediately  after  i;""'1 ,  but  the  Massoretic  order 
is  to  be  preferred. — TC?  (at  the  beginning  of  1:17)  is  connected 
by  LXX.  with  the  preceding  verse. — In  2:6,  Pesh.  transposes  the 
words  nZinn  and  n!j"ijj< ,  but  other  versions  agree  with  the  Hebrew. 
—  Pesh.  places  "itO'^Tl  (3:2)  at  the  beginning  of  the  address,  t.  e., 
immediately  after  -t:'-"  bn^  . —  For  nHTl  TCD  (6:11)  Vulg.  reads 
"|Cj1  nni.— In  8:13  Pesh.  places  Ib^TH  b^<  at  the  end  of  the 
verse,  and  spoils  the  rhetorical  beauty  of  the  whole  passage 
(8:9-13)  which,  in  the  Hebrew,  ends  as  well  as  begins  with  the 
same  words,  D^'^T  nUpTnin  . —  In  8:15,  Vulg.  transposes  Db"l23lT  ln5< 

and  min^  n^n  n:^. 

3.  Variations  arising  from  ignorance,  disregard,  or  an 
unsuccessful  presentation  of  Hehreio  idioms,  or  from  a  viola- 
tion of  Hebrew  syntax. — While  some  allowance  must  be  made 
for  the  difference  of  idioms  and  syntax  in  different  languages, 
one  cannot  overlook  those  variations  which  could  have  been 
avoided,  if  the  translators  had  been  more  faithful  to  the  original 
text. 

LXX.  attempts   to  give  the  force  of  the  cognate  accusative 

Ti^p  •  .  .  Ti^p  (1:2),  by  rendering  wpyiaOr)  .  .  .  Spyrjv  fxtyaX-qv, 
which  is  somewhat  awkward. —  For  ^1T^^51  (1:3),  Pesh.  gives  the 
actual  impv.  form  T>2'^,  and  fails  to  present  the  force  of  the  1 


10  The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8 

consecutive.  But  the  Heb,  is  more  idiomatic  and  therefore 
preferable. —  LXX.  renders  *T'a3'  (1:8)  by  eicrTrJKei,  which  is  less 
vivid  than  the  original.— For  HDli:  tT^^^  HT  (1:12),  LXX.  gives 
TovTo  efSSoiMrjKoarbv  Itos.  Vulg.  follows  LXX.,  and  translates  "sep- 
tuagesimus  annus."  But  in  view  of  Targ.,  Pesh.,  and  the  Heb., 
we  must  reject  the  LXX.  reading,  which  does  not  suit  the  context 
so  well.— Targ.  renders  "innl  (1:17)  by  ^nn^.  This  is  impos- 
sible, because  the  verb  is  not  followed  by  the  preposition  b ,  but 
by  n. —  For  ITSbni  (3:4),  LXX.  gives  koI  ivSvaare,  and  fails  to 
express  the  peculiar  force  of  the  perf .  ^r\"l2yn ,  followed  by  "irnbni 
(c/.  Harper,  Hebrew  Syntax,  §28,  4,  a).  Targ.  and  Pesh.  pre- 
sent the  sense  of  these  words  fairly  well,  though  they  weaken  the 
original  force.  Wellhausen  reads  I'^T^bni. — For  "^23  ■'j'lT  tibi< 
Q"'"5/jyn  "^nil^n  (4:14)  LXX.  gives  ovtoi  ol  Bw  viol  t^s  ttioti^tos 
irapeaTrJKaa-i.  This  rendering  would  be  for  TlbiXn  ^H^^Jl  ''32  ''3TU 
Q^-I7^3J, —  For  n'2iCL  (5:2),  LXX.  has  vrjx^wv,  and  Vulg.  "cubi- 
torum,"  both  of  which  renderings  fail  to  express  the  force  of  the 
preposition  H.  Targ.  and  Pesh.  omit  the  preposition  altogether. 
—  For  niS'^tlJl/J  HIJJ^^V  (6:5),  LXX.  gives  iK-n-opevovraL  TrapaaTTJvat  ; 
Vulg.  "egrediuntur  ut  stent";  Pesh.  ^151  "|'^''p"I-  But  all  these 
versions  utterly  fail  to  give  the  original  meaning. —  For  "jlSlI  p^i< 
(6:8),  LXX.  gives  the  extremely  literal  translation  yrjv  fioppa. — 
ri1"1t33'  (6:11),  plural  in  form  and  singular  in  sense,  is  incor- 
rectly rendered  by  LXX.  aT£«/)ai/oi;s ;  Vulg.  "coronas";  Arab. 
b''bi<lji< .  Targ.  gives  the  compromising  translation  H"!  b"'b5 ,  but 
Pesh.  has  the  simple  ^^b^blD.  The  same  word  in  6:14  is  again 
taken  by  Vulg.  as  plural,  but  by  LXX.  as  singular.  See  Well- 
hausen, 179,  on  this  verse.— In  D^iniH  ^  J^lbn  (7:7)  LXX., 
Vulg.  and  Pesh.  disregard  ini<  and  take  D^^mJl  as  the  subject  of 
the  verb  "to  be"  understood.  Wellhausen  reads  Jlb^  for  ni5<. 
— Vulg.  renders  Dnb  (7:12)  by  "cor  suum,"  failing  to  express 
the  collective  idea  of  the  pron.  suffix  in  the  original. —  LXX. 
renders  WJ5<n  ^''3'  (8:3)  by  ttoAi?  dAi?^tv>/  without  the  article. 
Wright  translates  "a  city  of  the  truth,"  without  ascribing  the 
absence  of  the  article  to  the  syntax  of  the  construct  state.  But 
Targ.  has  5<t:iDlp"I  i<nnp.— lElpH  IH  (8:3)  is  rendered  by  LXX. 
opos  ayiov  without  the  article.  But  Targ.  and  Pesh.  give  the  correct 
translation  J^lT^lp  i^nitJ. 


The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8  11 

4.  Variations  ivhich  may  he  ascribed  to  carelessness  and 
inaccuracy  of  the  translators. — Under  this  division  may  be 
included  many  of  the  omissions  and  additions  of  unessential  par- 
ticles, conjunctions,  adverbs,  pronouns,  etc.     For  instance: 

The  LXX.  \£y« for  DS3  (1:3,4, 16;  2:9, 10, 14;  3:9,  10;  5:4;  8:6, 
11,  17)  loses  sight  of  the  peculiar  force  of  the  original  word. 
The  Targ.  ^'C^,  and  the  Syr.  T^S  are  better.— J<3  (1:4)  is 
omitted  both  by  LXX.  and  by  Pesli.,  but  the  general  tone  of  such 
an  earnest  request  as  expressed  in  the  passage  favors  its  presence. 
For  'T'l  (1: 10;  4:5;  6:5),  Pesh.  gives  !J5j>"  without  the  conjunc- 
tion before  it. —  LXX.  omits  nri5<  (1  =  12)  and  fails  to  present  the 
emphatic  force  in  the  original. — For  ^"JJ^b  (1:14),  Pesh.  gives 
"1"J!!<1,  which,  of  course,  is  wrong.  So  also  in  1:17. —  In  2:17, 
Pesh.  renders  ■Ti:?D  by  T;:.'ln)n"J. —  HSn  (3:9)  is  omitted  by  LXX. 
—  nsni  (4:2)  is  omitted  by  Pesh. —  In  4:6  'p^^  and  TJJ^b 
(twice)  are  omitted  by  Pesh. —  Pesh.  renders  p'5<1  (4:11,  12) 
without  the  conjunction  and  destroys  the  idiomatic  Hebrew. — 
D^p"'^7-n  (4: 12),  which  is  the  noun-predicate  of  1i;i< ,  is  connected 
by  Pesh.  with  rilinDlS,  confusing  the  gender.  Symmachus 
also  presents  this  error. —  ^l^^T'^  (5:7)  is  omitted  by  Pesh. —  In 
6:3  Vulg.  read  D^r^i^l  D^-nn.*— The  second  r,2i<b  in  7:3  is 
omitted  by  Pesh. —  For  TTl  (7:13),  LXX.  incorrectly  gives 
Koi  eo-rat.  This  error  affects  the  LXX.  translation  of  the  following 
verbs. — Vulg.  transposes  "IITX  in  8:9. —  From  ^ri'jnD  ^bl  (8:14), 
Pesh.  omits  !}<b  and  renders  npSHi^l .  (So  in  London  Polyglot, 
but  Lee's  edition  has  5<b). —  From  D^y  ^D.'^^^  (8:20),  Pesh. 
omits  1  and  takes  D"'iy  '^ZTJi''  as  appositive  to  D'^'JS'. — In  8:21, 
Pesh.  seems  to  have  read  1"1"-^"'1  for  TJ5<b. 

5.  Obscure  rendering  and  the  omission  of  difficult  ivords. — 
In  many  cases,  the  translators  attempt  to  give  the  general  sense 
of  a  passage,  in  which  they  tind  some  word  or  words  too  difficult 
to  render  literally.  This  brings  forth  an  obscure  and  sometimes 
unintelligible  translation.  It  seems  to  be  more  common  to  omit 
difficult  words  altogether  than  to  give  an  uncertain  translation 
of  them. 

Pesh.  renders  D^DnUn  (1:8)   simply  by  i^Db^Ji,  and  hesitates 

*  On  6:3  see  especially  Lagarde,  Noniinat-ubery.icht,  29  rm.  LXX.  4iap6s,  Tai-g.  I'QtJ'ip, 
of  ashy-gray  color.  Aquila  icopTepo?,  agreeing  with  Hebrew;  Lagarde  proposes  to  read 
0*^3X10 <  "of  whitish  color." 


12  The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8 

to  express  what  kind  of  trees  they  are.  See  also  the  Syr.  of 
1:10,  11.  LXX.  translates  regularly  by  oprj  {cf.  6:1). —  In  6:3, 
Pesh.  seems  to  feel  the  difficulty  connected  with  D''J!I"^lJ<,  and 
omits  the  word  altogether.  Cf.  6:7. —  In  6:14,  Vulg.  renders  — ^ 
"inbl  by  "et  Hem,"  and  Targ.  also  takes  it  as  a  proper  name. 
But  Pesh.  omits  the  uncertain  word  'p,  and  substitutes  i<"'12;'T'bl 
J}<*'D£iiS  'nn.  Cf.  V.  10. —  "ib/J  (7:2)  part  of  a  proper  name,  is  ren- 
dered by  LXX.  and  Pesh.  as  a  common  noun  ;  6  /Sao-iXevs,  J^Sb'J. 
— ""riDlj^l  .  .  .  TintD  (8:3)  is  differently  rendered  by  translators. 
Pesh.  does  not  seem  to  be  sure  about  the  tense  of  these  verbs, 
and  avoids  the  difficulty  by  rendering  both  by  the  participles 
iC2T\'2  and  i^nic' .— ^fli^Dir  'I^T^  Tibi<  bi  ^  (8:17)  is  difficult  in 
construction.  LXX.  renders  ravra  iravTa  ifiLarja-a,  Theodotion  adds 
a  before  ifxtarjo-a.  Pesh.  follows  the  LXX.  Vulg.  and  Targ.  have 
tried  to  translate  the  llTi^,  but  have  failed  to  give  the  force  of 
riH.  On  the  other  hand,  LXX.  and  Pesh.  have  preserved  the 
original  construction  of  Jlb^  b^  rili<,  and  consequently  neglected 
the  word  ^"^3^^  .—The  meaning  of  01^:1  ^irrjnn  Ur^^  ^Ty^Tl  DI^S 
^Tiryn  D1i:i  "^mirn  (8:19)  must  have  been  very  obscure  in  the 
mind  of  the  LXX.  translator,  for  he  renders  vrjareia  -^  Tcrpa?  kol 
vrjaTtia  rj  irefXTTTrj,  vrjcrreia  i]  efiSofxr]  Kal  vrjareia  rj  SeKarrj.  But  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  and  Theodotion  understand  the  correct  meaning,  and 
translate  rather  inexactly  vrjo-Tua  rj  tov  TerdpTov,  koI  rj  tov  TrifiivTov, 
KoX  yj  TOV  kfihofiov,  Kol  ri  tov  Sc/carov. —  For  'TITU^  1>"  (8:20),  Pesh.  has 
b^S^J,  but  LXX.  omits  ^"1235<.  To  avoid  the  difficulty,  Henderson 
supplies  TTTT  between  the  two  words. 

6.  Explanatory  additions. — When  the  translators  think  the 
original  to  be  too  concise,  too  elliptical,  too  figurative,  too  obscure 
or  too  anthropomorphic,  they  supply  some  words  or  phrases  by 
way  of  explanation. 

After  ^D^52^n  IT^inn  (1:1)  Pesh.  adds  the  phrase  5<rn^n  "inn. 
This  seems  to  be  quite  a  common  phraseology  of  the  prophets 
(c/.  Ezek.  26:1;  31:1;  Hag.  1:1,  et  al.),  and  it  would  not  be 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  phrase  may  have  existed  in  the 
original  text,  Kohler  suggests  that  the  word  ITlln  means  the 
day  of  the  new  moon,  i.  e.,  the  first  day  of  the  month.  But  it  is 
doubtful  that  "the  first  day  of  the  month"  should  mean  more  than 
"the  beginning  of  the  month."     Therefore,  the  phrase  seems  to 


The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8  13 

be  an  explanatory  gloss;  and  even  if  it  was  in  the  original,  we 
must  be  grateful  to  the  editor  for  omitting  it. — Before  t2^5j  (1:15) 
Targ.  inserts  '^'CV  bS' ,  but  this  reading  is  not  supported  by  other 
versions. —  Before  5<1p  (1:17)  LXX.  adds  the  extra  sentence 
/cat  eiTre  Trpos  /i.€  6  ayyeXos  6  \aXwv  eV  6/u,oi.  But  this  insertion  seems 
to  be  out  of  place. — Vulgate  explains  I'lT  (2:4)  by  the  additional 
phrase,  "per  singulos  viros." — After  "b^  (2:8)  LXX.  supplies 
Xe'yw,  which  is  unnecessary. — After  "^J^b^^H  (3:3)  Pesh.  adds 
T\^TT ,  and  makes  its  favorite  phrase. —  In  3:4,  Pesh.  gives  5<iJ^b/J 
as  the  subject  of  "irV  — For  D^TD  (3:5)  Targ.  and  Pesh.  seem 
to  have  read  either  D^^int:  D'^irO  or  D^nlt:  D^ITl .  Wellhausen, 
176:  bei  D^TQ,  vermisst  man  das  adj.  "rein." — Before  inTH 
(4:12  end),  LXX.  supplies  ras  iwapvaTpiSa^. —  After  'TO  (6:13)-^ 
Targ.  adds  H"! .  —  For  D''piri"i1  (6:15)  LXX.  has  koI  ol  fiaKpav  an 
airCiv.  —  ^:?^nirnl  ^^"^'^nn  (7:5)  is  rendered  by  Pesh.  5<nn^n 
i^^y^^lTl  X^lT^/.n.  —  In  7:11  Pesh.  renders  n^iTpHb  by  ^jy^JlT/jb , 
which  does  not  suit  the  context.  — For  S"lp  ^V:^'D  (7:13)  LXX. 
6V  TpoTTov  ciTre.  —  For  ]T'^b  (8:2)  LXX.  seems  to  have  read  DblTlTb 
"iVilbl ,  and  renders  t^v  'UpovaaXrjix  kol  t^v  Siwv.  —  Targ.  interprets 
DbirlT  ni<  (8:15)  by  Db'd:lT  ^nn^b.  — For  D^"?J3?  (8:20),  LXX. 
reads  D^nn  Dr^3f .  — For  niH^  ni<  'JJpnb  (8:21,  22),  LXX.  gives 
€KCrjT^<Tai  TO  Trpoo-wTToi/  Kvpiov,  and  Targ.  "  Ulp  "^J  "jbl!J^  ^2T\'2b . 

7.  Double  translation. —  The  translator  gives,  side  by  side, 
different  renderings  of  single  words,  when  he  is  not  quite  sure  of 
the  original  meaning.  For  example:  In  1:8,  for  D"'p"l1I)  LXX. 
gives  Kai  \jjapol  Kal  ttolklXoi,  which  would  show  that  the  translator 
himself  did  not  know  the  exact  meaning  of  the  word.      Cf.  6:3. 

8.  Variations  arising  from  misunderstanding  or  misinterpre- 
tation of  a  word  or  passage. —  For  ll^"  p  (1:1)  LXX.  gives  vlov 
'ASSo),  thus  making  rT'^jT  and  My  p  stand  in  apposition.  The 
translator  seems  to  have  taken  Zechariah  not  as  grandson  of  Iddo, 
as  in  Vulg.,  but  simply  as  his  descendant.  So  also  in  1:7.  Lowe, 
however,  inclines  to  take  the  vlov  as  a  corruption  of  vlov.  —  niJT' 
Til^n^I  occurs  forty-four  times  in  the  first  eight  chapters,  and 
eight  times  in  the  remainder  of  the  book  of  Zechariah  (1:3,  three 
times,  4,  6,  12,  14,  16,17;  2:12,  13,  15;  3:7,9,10;  4:6,9;  5:4; 
6:12,  15;  7:3,  4,9,  12  twice,  13;  8:1,  2,  3,  4,  6  twice,  7,  9  twice, 
11,  14  twice,  18,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23;  9:15;  10:3;  11:5;  12:2,  7; 


14  The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8 

14:16,  21  twice).  In  all  but  three  places,  LXX.  renders  Kupto? 
TravTOKpoLTwp,  and  twice  Kvpio?  tw  Swdfiewv  (1:9;  7:4).  The  Syriac 
translation  U^jMb'^n  corresponds  to  the  LXX.  TravTOKpaTtop.  All  the 
attempted  translations  fail  to  give  the  original  meaning  and  are 
no  better  than  the  mere  transliteration  aafiawO  (13:2).  Vulg. 
gives  "dominus  exercituum,"  which  is  perhaps  the  meaning  in 
the  original.  —  LXX.  renders  I*!!''  (1:5)  by  ^?;o-ovrat,  and  this  is 
followed  by  Vulg.  which  gives  "  vivent."  But  the  context  requires 
the  present  tense,  which  is  well  expressed  in  the  Hebrew.  —  Vulg. 
takes  the  whole  of  1 : 6  as  a  question,  but  LXX.  changes  the  inter- 
rogative sentence  in  the  verse  into  an  imperative  sentence  with 
the  verb  Bixea-Oe.  —  For  ^Ti'^^'S,  (1:6)  LXX.  gives  cvTcAXo/xat  without 
any  sufficient  reason.  —  For  l!11^''1  (1:6)  LXX.  incorrectly  gives 

Koi  OLTreKpiOrjcrav. tlt\''2^1  1^i<  (1:12)  is  rendered  by  LXX.  as  UTreptiSes 

and  by  Targ.  lb  "pn^biJ?  Jj<n^n^i<lt3 .  But  Vulg.  and  Pesh.  agree 
with  the  Hebrew.  —  Vulg.  translates  nrjJ  U^'JZlV:  HT  (1:12)  by 
"Iste  iam  septuagesimus  annus  est,"  and  does  not  include  the 
sentence  in  the  question  introduced  by  ^T\'Q  13? .  —  njllilSfl  (1: 17) 
is  incorrectly  rendered  by  Pesh.  *p1lncD  ;  Targ.  Tb'2T\'' ;  LXX. 
StaxvO^aovTaL ;  but  Vulg.  gives  the  correct  translation  "affluent." — 
Targ.  fails  to  give  the  original  sense  of  2:11. — For  D"'Z"irTl 
(3:8)  Pesh.  has  "p/J'^pl  "pbH,  which  is  not  supported  by  any  other 
version.  —  t'\l2'^  (3:8)  is  certainly  a  difficult  word.  LXX.  ren- 
ders 'AvaToXrji';  Vulg.  "  Orientem  "  ;  and  Pesh.  J^HDI.  These  trans- 
lators either  take  the  word  as  an  equivalent  of  Syr.  ^^TOIS ,  or 
read  rnV2  ;  cf.  Zech.  6:12,  Isa.  4:2,  Jer.  23:5,  33:15.  Aquil. 
renders  the  word  by  dra^w;,  and  Symm.  by  /SXda-TrjfjLa.  The  last 
two  seem  to  express  the  original  most  satisfactorily.  —  For  nriS'J 
InnriS  (3:9),  LXX.  gives  6pvaa(a  ^oOpov,  probably  reading  nlnnS; 
Aquil.  8tayAu</)w  dvoty/u,aTa  auT^s ;  Targ.  5J<ntl''7M  "'br*  X"^5  ;  Pesh. 
ST^3''*iri  SJ^Di^  nnn  .  None  of  these  readings  seem  to  be  better  than 
the  Hebrew,  which  is  followed  by  Vulg.  and  Symm.  —  For  "'tVJ^'C 
(3:9)  LXX.  gives  i/^r/Xa^Tyo-w,  and  this  is  followed  by  Pesh. — LXX. 
seems  to  regard  "laJ'^/jb  (4:7)  as  an  Aramaic  infinitive  from  the 
root  mj"' ,  and  renders  tov  KaropOSxrai.  But  this  word  is  undoubt- 
edly a  noun,  as  we  find  ^I'lD/Ji  in  Targ.  and  >5ln5?p3  T5<  !J^b^^  in 
Pesh.;  an  imperative  form  of  JT'tl  has  probably  been  omitted 
before  lir^^jb  .  — 1X^1  in:j^1   (4:10)   is  rendered  by  Targ.  ^im 


^ 


The  Text  of  Zechakiah  1-8  15 

-^rr  ns  and  by  Pesh.  -p7nn3i  -pnrav— For  y^nM  pi^n  (4:10) 

LXX.     gives    Tov  XlOov  tov   Kao-airepivov ;     Aquil.    KaaaiTcpov ;     Symm. 

Tov  Kcxcoptcr^xcVov;  Tlieod.  dpt^v;  Vulg.  "lapidem  stanneum;"  Targ. 
i^nbipiT/J  pi^;  Pesh.  ^DTI-IIST  iOi^Sb.  None  of  these  trans- 
lations can  express  the  exact  meaning  of  the  original;  for,  in 
fact  the  Hebrew  y^inn  is  almost  untranslatable.— ^bniT  (4:12) 
is  rendered  by  LXX.  KXdSoc,  and  by  Vulg.  "spicae."  The  former 
is  better  than  the  latter. -For  ^nm   (4:14),  LXX.  gives  r^, 

TTtor^TO^,-     Aquil.    CTTt\7rv6Tr,ro,;     Symm.    ^Aatou;     Theod.    \afi.np6Tr,TO,. 

—  LXX.  takes  rib"Q  (5:1)  either  as  a  feminine  form  of  ^'2  or 
as  an  equivalent  of  the  Aramaic  i^b:?J  ,  and  renders  SpeVavov.  In 
this  it  is  followed  by  the  Pesh.,  but  Aquil.  and  Theod.  render 
8,cf>0epa;  Symm.  Ke<^aXc,  or  .iXrji^a.  LXX.  is  certainly  mistaken.— 
For  Q^:i/Ji<  D^'^3  (6:3)  LXX.  gives  ttoiklXoi  ipapoi;  Targ.  "pH^ilS 
p'^lDp;  Symm.  and  Theod.  prefer  ttcXiSvoi  to  ttoikiAoi,  but  Aquil. 
takes  tiie  usual  meaning  of  U^TQ^  and  renders  Kaprcpoi  In  6:7 
U-T2^n  is  rendered  by  LXX.  and  Targ.  in  the  same  way.  But 
Theod.  suggests  laxvpoc;  Aquil.  ofPers  an  emendation  by  giving 
TTv^^ot;  but  Symm.  strangely  gives  aw£(T<AtyMcvot.  —  ^Hin  n5<  mn 
(6:8)  is  taken  by  Targ.  as  an  imperative  sentence.  — ^^^n^O 
n-'^'T  r\W2^  n^n^t:  T\^'2^   (6:10)   is  rendered  by  LXX.   Trapa  tw  . 

dpxovrcuv,    Kal  naph  rSv    XP^crc>a,.  ai^r^9,  Kal  Trapa  rJ)V  cVcyvcuKo'rw  airi^v. 

The  translator  was  either  ignorant  that  these  are  proper  nouns, 
or  regarded  them  as  symbolical  names.  A  similar  case  may  be 
noted  in  6:14,  where  H^^^bl  H^nltib^  Obnb  is  rendered  by  rot? 

iTTO/^eVovcn  Kal   roi,   XPV^^t^oc,  airij,,  Kal  rots   e7reyva,K0crtv  airi^v.      (CodeX 

A-  „i^sv).  — 1in  5^ir^  5<ini  (6:13)  is  variously  rendered.  LXX. 
translates  the  word  lIH  by  dper^v;  Aquil.  inc8o$6rrjra ;  another  copy 
ciV^tav;  Still  another  8o|a.;  Vulg.  "gloriam;"  Targ.  ^T;  Pesh. 
renders  the  whole  sentence  by  iJ^nn^llT  b^pD  ^Hl  .  —  LXX.,  Vulg., 
Targ.  and  Pesh.  take  bli^  n^2  (7:2)  as  in  the  accusative  of  direc- 
tion.—For  n^nb  (7:3)  LXX.  gives  ev  t<?  oi^Ku,.— ^rTj:ni  -irrjnn 

(7:5)  is  rendered  by  LXX.  iv  rats  7r€>7rTais  ^  €v  rats  l^ao/xats.  But 
Aquil.,  Symm.,  and  Theod.  translate  eV  t«5  irefiwrio  Kal  kv  t<o  l^8dp.a). 
The  latter  is  the  correct  rendering.  —  For  H^JH  ynj^  (7:14), 
LXX.  incorrectly  gives  yTjv  iK\eKri/jv.  ^WSITV  •  •  • '^nn^  (8:3); 
Vulg  attaches  two  different  tenses  to  these  verbs,  and  translates 
"reversus  sum  .  .  .  .  et  habitabo."     Pesh.  avoids  the  difficulty  by 


■^^ 


~«^ 


16  The  Text  of  Zechaeiah  1-8 

rendering  both  by  participles.  Wright  regards  the  first  verb  as 
a  present -perfect,  and  the  second  as  a  present.     But  this  does  not 

suit  the   context    so   well    as    the    LXX.    koI    i-n-ta-Tpeipu}  ....  Kal   Kara- 

aK7]vwao),  which  Targ.  practically  follows,  by  rendering  21171^5 
^t^^j^^  ^TiTU^I  .  .  .  .  —  Targ.  renders  n^m-n-in  (8:5)  by  J^nnsz  in 
order  to  distinguish  the  word  from  ni2n1  at  the  beginning  of 
the  verse. ^ — The  second  half  of  8:6  is  taken  interrogatively  by 
LXX.,  Vulg.jTarg.,  and  uncertain  in  Pesh.  Hitzig,  Kohler  and 
others  object  to  it.— riTtJ  (8:7)  is  rendered  by  LXX.  o-co^o),  but 
by  Vulg.  "salvabo."  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  meaning  in  the 
original. —  dTlbU^b  ....  D^'b  (8:8)  is  rendered  by  Vulg.  "in  popu- 
lum  ....  in  Deum."  This  literal  and  unintelligible  rendering 
shows  that  the  translator  did  not  understand  the  meanins:  of  the 
passage.  —  For  riljZSlb  (8:9)  LXX.  gives  d^'  ov  iOKoSo/xriTaL.  From 
this,  Hitzig  concludes  that  LXX.  read  riljuH"-  .  Hitzig  does  not 
seem  to  have  read  the  LXX,  translation  of  the  entire  verse  very 
carefully.  —  'I'lTl  "J  (8:10)  is  understood  by  Vulg.  and  Targ.  to 
mean  "on  account  of  the  affliction,"  but  Pesh.  gives  the  correct 
translation,  iJ^iilblJ^  Dip  "J.  — Dlba;n  m  (8:12)  is  rendered  by 
Targ.  Db'i:  ^Jl^  N>"1T ,  and  by  Pesh.  i^'^bll^  iJ^in:  5<>'^T .  But  the 
Vulg.  translation  "semen  pacis  erit"  seems  to  be  best.  —  For 
nj"in  (8:13)  LXX.  gives  iv  euXoyt'a  and  weakens  the  sense  of  the 
original. 

9.  Free  translation  or  paraphrase. — -This  is  very  common, 
as  every  biblical  student  knows,  in  Targ.  and  Pesh.  The  varia- 
tions in  this  class  may  be  divided  into  two  groups. 

(a)    Cases  in  which  the  original  sense  is  fairly  presented. 

For  qisp  ....  -;:sp  (1:2),  Targ.  gives  b"  irm^^T ....  Trunin 

^riTiJ'ip.- For  Drb'vS   2Vi"^51    (1:3)     Targ.    has    ^n^r-.:2   "DSn^^l 

pb  ^nt!^«b— For  -b^  In^'C-pn  ^b  (1:4),  LXX.  gives  ov  wpoaeaxov 
Tov  tlaaKoixrai  {xov,  and  Targ.  "^T^^/^b  iri"'ii!}5  ^b .  They  seem  simply 
to  have  paraphrased  the  same  Hebrew  text. —  Pesh.  paraphrases 
the  whole  of  1:5  as  follows:  Db"b  ^'ihl  -^"^"l  "p^  ^-Z«  'I^J^  «r^ 
■p^n.— nt^pTTl  ln2\i;^  (1:11)  is  rendered  by  Targ.  i^lblT  Xltl^ 
5<t:"pli:1  .—For  ^n-^r^S  (2 :  lO)  LXX.  has  o-wa^co.  The  meanings  of 
the  words  are  opposite  to  each  other.  But  this  is  a  clear  case  of 
paraphrase,  because  the  scattering  of  the  j^eople  from  Babylon  is 
practically  the  same  as  the  gathering  of  them  into  Jerusalem.    One 


The  Text  or  Zechariah  1-8  17 

would  expect  something  like  Tl'^Zp  (Wellhaiisen,  Joe.  rif.,  175). — 
LXX.  paraphrases  t\r^hrr2  (3:4)  by  noS^pr].— For  nCJ^I  bs?  (4:2), 
LXX.  gives  iirdvw  avTTJ'i.  (It  is  equivalent  to  the  preceding  Tcb:/ , 
Wellhausen,  177).— For  ^Hl^n  (4:6)  Targ.  has  ^Tr'-in.— Targ. 
takes  blljll  ^n  (4:7)  as  referred  to  Rome,  and  gives  a  very  full 
paraphrase  of  the  whole  verse. —  For  nS^NiTi  (5:6),  LXX.  gives 
TO  fierpov,  and  Vulg.  "amphora,"  both  of  which  are  inferior  to 
Symmachus'  transliteration  oi<^i. —  For  "Tjm  (7:3),  Vulg.  gives 
"vel  sanctificare  me  debeo,"  and  Targ.  "i^plISlTl"^  ""(TS"  J'j'^J^n . — For 
^2r'^  f''2^  HT  (7:3)  LXX.  gives  1787  iKavh  h-q. —  For  l/^oJ  Dnbl 
T'C'Ij  (7:12),  Vulg.  has  "et  cor  suum  posuerunt  ut  adamantem." 
—  For  D"l:nbr  hv  (7:14)  Targ.  gives  ^''•2'2'J  ^rn.- LXX.  ren- 
ders iJjiT'Jn  b&^  (8:13)  by  Oapo-eiTe,  which  is  less  exact  than  the 
Vulg.  "nolite  timere."  Cf.  8:15.— For  yjl'Jti  ^Z^  D^nmr;  ^b^5 
(8:16)  Pesh.  gives  the  free  translation  113^"  ^'2:^V^zi  'fbn. 

[b]   Cases  in  which  the  original  sense  is  missed. 

Targ.  paraphrases  the  second  half  of  1:5  as  follows:  Q5<1 
'\"2'p  i<"2b"b  i^b  5<^^2:  ]^^'2^T\ .  But  this  does  not  agree  with  the 
context. —  For  lc:i  "^1"  "Im  (2:10),  Targ.  gives  the  paraphrase, 

.  .  .  ^:^^K2  v:;:-n^5  ",inb  in-::5<i  j^^mriib  ib-^j^.  This  is  so  dif- 
ferent from  the  HebreAV  that  I  am  inclined  to  regard  it  as  a 
Targumic  paraphrase  of  a  different  reading.  At  any  rate,  the 
reading  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  remainder  of  the  paragraph. 
In  vv.  11-13,  14-16,  17,  the  commands  are  first  given  in  the 
imperative  form,  and  then  followed  by  the  reasons  or  grounds 
thereof,  introduced  by  "H} .  Why  should  not  v.  10  also  have  the 
same  formula,  seeing  that  its  second  half  is  a  causal  clause  intro- 
duced by  "j  ?  It  is  true  that  1!:)«U5  introduces  an  imperative 
sentence,  but  it  is  not  part  of  the  divine  message,  which  begins 
with    IZD.nX.— For  ^T  nx  Tprj    (2:13)   Targ.  gives  tr  n'''\'2 

^mizj  n-"^ .— For  D\^<i:i  D^irc  zzb  n"n(3:3)  Targ.  has  ^n 
i<n:in^'b  'pu:^  adi  7'^;  "^prib  -pc'i  7:2  rrb.— For  -^rr^-^n  ":n 

(4:14)  Targ.  gives  i^'^^'nj.l  ^3^. — Targ.  seems  to  disregard  the 
suffix  in  Dr>  (5:6)  and  paraphrases  Dip  'Jdj  "pDS^. — The  Tar- 
gumic paraphrase  of  v.  7  is  extremely  free. —  For  Till  fl^  l^rm 
(6:8),  Targ.  gives  ^T\rj^  T\^  ITZ?  -pnb  TJU^.  Wellhausen,  179: 
one  would  expect  the  imperfect  ImT  .  —  For  T''2'^''  Vlnr;riT;2l 
(6:12)  Targ.  gives  the  strange  paraphrase,  "'^IH'^I  "'b^ri"'"  TTi'^ . 


18  The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8 

—For  D^n'oin  Dni^i  D^bsi^n  Dn!}<  ^bn  (7:6)  Targ.  has  ^^nti^u^b  ^hn 

"iniD  "pri5<  'pSb .  This  rendering  is  inferior  to  the  elliptical 
construction  in  the  original,  and  is  favored  by  no  other  versions. 

—  D'^?^'^  nn?J  ITn  in"rir72  ^^i<^  (8:4)  is  incorrectly  rendered 
by  Targ.  !}<^7^r  "fC  "nlby  "pDrO  &<^:pn  ^n^l3,rj  ^n.-V— Targ. 
wrongly  renders  part  of  8 : 6  by  ]}<"^yT  X'^JJ^'J:  ^r^l  ^nbm  Ip^n  "ID 

10.  Inierpretation  rather  than  translation.  —  For  »lb^723 
(1:8)  Targ.  gives  b^^Il,  comparing  "the  shady  valley"  with 
Babylon.— D^nlt:  (1:13)  is  rendered  by  Targ.  "^jpn.— Targ. 
renders  ^13?  (1:17)  by  ^'2T  ^1"^p.— For  niS^p  (2:1)  Targ.  gives 
"pDb/J ,  which  seems  to  be  an  interpretation,  though  the  translator 
may  have  read  riVSb"-. —  For  *^Z1  bS  (2:17)  Targ.  gives  biD 
m'^y^^l ,  which  cannot  be  accepted. —  Targ.  interprets  n'JlS  (3:8) 
by  iXrrj:'2 .—  For  ns^^^n  nj^T  (5:6)  Targ.  has  1im  ^2^'  'fiiK 
ir\pXl  5<nb^D7jn  -fnn^l  -f2C3.— For  ^>"DS  in^^  (5:11),  lxx. 
gives  yrj  Ba/8x>Awvos;  Targ.  b^H  T\T^'2;  and  Pesh.  b^nm  H:*^5<.— 

In  the  place  of  n^^D^'n  (6:14)   Targ.  has  J5nnnu;n.— For  ibcDl  ^— > 
(7:1),   Pesh.  gives   *p3D  Itl",   v/hich   is  no   better  than  a  mere 
transliteration  as  given  in  LXX.,  Vulg.  and  Arabic. —  For  DllSn 
^25^  ^:VCi22  (7:5)  Targ.  has  rjnp  p^Tl^J  "pm  ^TJVi  Dllin.— Pesh. 
interprets    ^3^1    ^:«    (7:10)    by   "inlb    5<:sn:2lbl    5<:5C'jbl .— For 

^"'/3123  l7Ja3  DZlbl  (7: 12),  LXX.  gives  koL  ttjv  KapSiav  avrwv  €Ta$av  aTruOrj. 

—  D^nmn  (7:12)  is  rendered  by  Pesh.  XDIplS.— For  HOp  nirSD 

(7:13),  Targ.  gives  ^^^-^iiD  "pnb ''^^^^n:ns^  i<"jD.— or^i:::?  (8:22) 

is  rendered  by  LXX.  iroXXd,  and  by  Targ.  "p^"!!!"! . 

11.  The  translators  change  the  text,  so  as  to  avoid  difficulties, 
or  to  suit  their  own  interpretation. 

For  5<lbn  (1:6),  LXX.  seems  to  have  read  l^i'S,  or  omitted 
the  word  altogether. —  For  ^nDDlTl  (2:15),  Pesh.  evidently  read 
"(DTTI  .  But  LXX.  has  koi  KaTaa-Krjviaa-ovcnv,  wliich  does  not  suit  the 
context  very  well. —  CTi  (2:17)  is  taken  by  Targ.  as  plural. — 
LXX.  omits  1TJ!5<1  (3:5),  taking  the  last  part  of  the  preceding 
verse,  as  well  as  the  first  sentence  of  this  verse,  as  Jahveh's 
address  to  the  angel  attendants.  But  this  omission  is  quite 
inconsistent  with  the  LXX.  translation  of  the  preceding  verse. 
Wellhausen,  176,  adopts  reading  of  the  LXX.  (Tjd^'lS).— For  n'CTl 
(3:8),   Pesh.  evidently  read  Dln.S.— For  tl^tXn  .   .   .  'Sj   (3:10) 


The  Text  of  Zechaeiah  1-8  19 

Targ.  read  1!35!<ln  .  .  .  1DS3,  but.  this  rendering  weakens  the  figure 
in  the  original,  which  is  a  characteristic  feature  of  Messianic 
speech  (c/.  Mic.  4:1). —  For  TJ,  (4:12)  LXX.  has  iv  rats  x^P^^- — 
In  5:5,  Targ.  read  rj  for  r^^2,  and  nbsH  for  n^^Tn.— Pesh. 
omits  tTiTT  bSTi  in!}<  Jl'Zll  (6:12),  supposing,  probably,  that  the 
copyist  added  here  by  mistake  the  first  part  of  the  following 
verse.  But  LXX.  seems  to  regard  niH^  blL^Tl  tM<  JlDn^  ^51!nl  in 
6:13  as  an  unnecessary  repetition  of  the  last  sentence  of  the 
preceding  verse,  and  omits  it  altogether.  I  think  the  LXX. 
reading  is  more  plausible  than  the  Syriac. —  For  D3'T1  ('7:2) 
Pesh.  has  riblTV— For  D^S^nDH  (7:3),  Targ.  gives  S^^SC— For 
nSnnbn  iTl-nn  bi<  (7:10),  Vulg.  has  "non  cogitet  in  corde  suo," 
but  the  Heb.  is  more  idiomatic  and  is  supported  by  LXX.,  Targ., 
Pesh.,  and  partly  the  Arabic. — For  Jj^^p  niTJ^S  (7: 13),  Pesh.  gives 
"p!!j5  t^''"ipT  b? .  This  reading  is  very  smooth  and  seems  to  be 
correct.— D^pniT/J  (8:  5)  is  rendered  by  Targ.  ",^nnir"J  (r/.  2  Sam. 
6:5).  For  HTl^niQ  (8:5),  some  Greek  manuscripts  of  LXX. 
are  based  on  the  reading  DH^nnnnn.— For  ^DDlTl  (8:8)  LXX. 
reads  "^rij^wV — LXX.  renders  tlTTl  DSTI  (8:12)  by  toS  Xaov  ixov 
TovTov,  which  is  not  correct,  containing  an  addition. —  In  8:15, 
LXX.  adds  koI  before  Tl'J'-T,  because  the  translator  read  TIQujm 
for   ^nn'i:.— For  Dlb'C  X:S^2'2^  (8:16),  Pesh.  gives  Kzb'^^  J^ni . 

II. 

VAKIATIONS    DUE    PRESUMABLY    TO    THE    MSS. 

1.  Errors  made  hy  the  copyists  of  the  versions. —  In  this 
class  I  include  those  errors  which  are  due  not  to  the  original 
Hebrew  text,  or  to  the  translators,  but  to  the  copyists  of  the  text 
of  a  translation. 

(a)  Addition:  For  l;in^1  (7:11),  Vulg.  has  "et  averterunt," 
which  seems  to  be,  as  Wright  suggests,  a  mistake  of  the  copyists 
for  "et  verterunt." 

(6)  Omission:  For  ^'Z'Xf]  ^^2'2  (8:7),  some  Codd.  of  the 
LXX.  have  simply  Sva/iwv,  but  others  add  riXtov. —  In  8 :  13,  LXX. 
has  6  oiKos  'lov'Sa  Kcti  otKos  'lo-pttT^A.  The  omission  of  the  article 
before  the  second  o?/cos  is  to  be  taken  as  a  copyist's  error. 

(c)  Repetition:  For  H^llnn  (7:12),  LXX.  has  tov  vo/xov  fiov. 
The  fiov  seems  to  be  a  repetition  by  mistake  of  the  latter  part  of 
the  preceding  word,  vofiov. 


20  The  Text  or  Zeohakiah  1-8 

(f^)  Alteration:  For  lyiLTi  i^^bn  (1:6),  LXX.  gives  or  KareXd- 
(3oaav.     But  it  seems  to  bo   a  corruption  of  ov  KaTiXd^otrav. 

2.  Errors  due  to  the  condition  of  the  texts  nsed  by  the 
translators. —  That  the  texts  used  by  the  translators  were  in 
quite  bad  condition  is  evident  from  the  existence  of  those  pecu- 
liar variations  which  could  not  have  arisen,  if  the  writing  had 
been  clear,  full,  and  exact.  Some  of  the  causes  of  these 
variations  are: 

(a)  Omission  of  the  final  D.  "According  to  Lagarde,  the 
three  letters  tl,  '2,  T\,  when  occurring  at  the  end  of  a  word,  were 
not  written  in  the  MSS.  used  by  LXX.,  but  represented  by  the 
mark  of  abbreviation  (")  which  already  appears  on  Hebrew 
coins."  (Driver's  Tlie  Books  of  Samuel,  Introd.,  p.  Ixix).  In  my 
examination  of  Zech.  1-8,  I  have  found  at  least  one  variation 
due  to  the  omission  of  the  final  D. —  For  nlti'J  ^^3?  (1:17)  LXX. 
and  Pesh.  read  nit: /J  D^^:?,  and  Targ.  niD  "TJ>'  ^1>\  It  is  possible 
that  the  '2  of  nit3'J  originally  belonged  to  "''^3? ,  but  it  is  more 
probable  that  the  final  D  was  omitted,  as  usual,  in  the  original 
MSS.;  and  LXX.  and  Pesh.  seem  to  present  the  correct  reading. 

(5)  Confusion  of  consonants.  Considering  the  condition  of 
the  ancient  MSS.  used  by  the  translators,  and  also  their  method 
of  translation,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  some  consonants 
were  confounded  with  others.  In  some  cases  the  confusion 
seems  to  have  arisen  from  a  similarity  in  form,  and  in  others, 
from  a  similarity  in  sound. 

For  Tnnnb  (2:4)  LXX.  reads  Tir^tlb  and  renders  tov  o^vvau 
Schleusner  thought  that  the  LXX.  translation  has  simply  given 
the  sense  of  the  passage.  But  Vulg.,  Targ.,  and  Pesh.,  though 
they  do  not  give  exact  equivalents  of  the  word,  seem  to  have 
intended  to  translate  T'lmb,  which  is  certainly  the  correct 
reading. —  The  confusion  of  Pi  with  H  is  quite  common.  In  2:6, 
LXX.  fails  to  give  the  suffix  of  ?i;d"i&<.  In  3:9,  T\T\TS  is  rendered 
by  LXX.  without  the  suffix.  In  4:2,  LXX.  and  Pesh.  again 
omit  the  suffix  from  Plbj.  In  4:11,  LXX.  and  Targ.  do  not 
give  the  suffix  of  nbl5<"J^.  Again  in  5:2,  LXX.  omits  the 
suffix  from  t^nnll  .  .  .  nj~iiJ<.  There  is  one  case  in  which  H  is 
taken  for  H ,  viz:  in  4: 3,  LXX.  reads  t^br*n  for  TbZ\T\ .  Wellhausen, 
177:    "for    nbr^n    "p'jrj     read    nT'2^'2,    the  suffix  referring  to 


The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8  21 

nni:^Jll;  cf.  11;  nb^n  is  a  false  paraphrase."— For  MnS  (2:8), 
LXX.  reads  inV^B,  and  renders  KaraKapTrux; ;  Symmachus  dTei;!^to-Tws  ; 
Theodotion  eh  TrAaros.  But  Vulg.,  Targ.,  and  Pesh.  agree  with 
the  Hebrew.  Also  see  Wellhausen,  Kleine  Pr'opheten,  175. — For 
nr.11  3?nn5<5  (2:10),  LXX.  reads  ninr  yn'^iHrZ.  Several  MSS. 
and  Vulg.  read  3''I1'^>5I2 .  This  reading  seems  to  be  better  than 
the  Hebrew,  because  niri1"l  3''2"l^5  simply  means  "the  four  direc- 
tions," and  not  the  actual  "winds."  Wright,  however,  does  not 
believe  y^^lJ^Q  to  have  been  the  reading  of  Vulg.  or  Pesh.,  and 
holds  that  the  latter,  at  least,  has  probably  read  ^^"ilJ^b.  The 
reading  of  an  original  MS.  j  for  7J  (both  being  very  much  alike; 
see  Riehm-Baethgen,  HandivdrterhucJi,  article  "Schrift")  is  very 
common.  Mention  may  be  made  here  of  Hos.  9:7;  Amos  5:8, 
17;  Mic.  1:2;  Zech.  2:10;  6:11.  This  explains  satisfactorily ->> 
the  LXX.  translation  i$  ( =  'J  )  for  Heb.  ID .  Wellhausen,  loc.  cit. 
175,  says:  "One  would  expect  something  like  3?2"1!!<'J." — For  CH 
(2: 17) ,  LXX.  has  ei\a/3eiCT9w ;  Pesh.  bmDI ,  and  Targ.  ISC .  These 
translators  seem  to  have  read  flrt . —  For  the  second  D 31  (3:7), 
LXX.  reads  Di<V — For  n^^  (5:3),  Targ.  gives  "'pb,  which  has 
perhaps,  as  Wright  suggests,  arisen  from  the  confusion  of  tlpD 
with  rijj. — ^For  UT^  (5:6),  LXX.  reads  Dwl^  and  renders  rj  dStKta 
avTwv.  Wellhausen,  178,  follows  LXX.  and  in  addition  omits  as  a 
gloss  lns::rn  ns^^^n  nj<7  I'^^^r .  Pesh.  seems  to  follow  LXX., 
and  gives  J^QIm.  Symmachus'  suggestion  Trpo?  tovto  aTro^XlTrovm 
is  certainly  based  upon  the  Heb.  UT'$ ,  but  it  is  not  an  exact 
translation. —  LXX.  renders  HTiD  (8:10)  by  lo-rut,  probably 
reading  n'^in"'.  Lowe  thinks,  however,  that  the  LXX.  translator 
read  TTIX;  as  an  Aramaic  future.  At  any  rate,  the  verb  should 
be  taken  as  a  past,  as  in  Vulg.,  Pesh.,  and  in  some  MSS.  of 
the   LXX. 

(c)  Corruption  of  the  Text.  Though  the  confusion  of  conso- 
nants is,  in  a  sense,  due  to  the  corruption  of  the  text,  yet,  under 
this  special  heading,  I  include  those  strange  and  remarkable 
variations  which  compel  me  to  ascribe  them  to  the  fact  that  the 
original  text  was  very  badly  corrupted  and  obscure. 

For  Ij'^'iTn  (1:6),  Pesh.  gives  THjltli^ .  Perhaps  the  text  was 
corrupt,  but  it  is  possible  that  the  translator  read  TJ'^im. — For 
n^3j!J<^n  (1: 15),  Vulg.  has  "opulentas;"  Targ.  S^lblT  p12J1;  Pesh. 


22  The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8 

"f irri^n'^T ;  the  English  Version  (both  A.  and  K.)  follows  the 
Targ.  But  LXX.  gives  the  correct  rendering,  to.  aweTnTiOefieva, 
which  seems  to  be  for  Q^XITSm,  as  Schleusner  well  suggested.* 
—  For  H!!''  (2:7,  after  ^2),  LXX.  seems  to  have  read  Z'2j  and 
renders  dcTTrJKei.  But  the  Heb.  is  to  be  preferred,  because  it  suits 
the  context  better.f — ^LXX.  renders  the  second  half  of  2:12  by 

SioTi   6   dirTOfievoi   v/iuiv   cus   6   ainofxevo^   t^s   K6pr}<;  rov  6cf>9aXfiov  avrov,    as 

if  the  text  had    read  Vjj'Zi ri^Hii.     This  is  followed  by 

Targ.  But  Vulg.  and  Pesh.  give  faithful  translations  of  the 
more  vivid  original  Hebrew. —  For  llbwl  (2:15),  LXX.  incor- 
rectly reads  ICjI,  and  renders  Kara^ew^ovrai. — For  \^T/2'2  (2:17), 
LXX.  gives  €K  ve(f)€\w,  and  Pesh.  !J5"2l"l7J.  It  is  probable  that 
the  former  read  "Dy'J(7j),  and  the  latter  nbT'2'2. —  For  I'^^li:^ 
(3:5),  LXX.  has  imecTe.—  WjbrTC  (3:7),  a  very  difficult  word,  is 
rendered  by  LXX.  avaaTpe<f)OfX€vov'i,  by  Vulg.  "ambulantes,"  and 
by  Pesh.  "jbtTQ.  Hitzig's  objection  to  Gesenius'  interpretation 
of  the  word  does  not  prove  that  the  form  is  an  Aramaic  hiph. 
participle  from  "ibn.  Wellhausen,  176:  D^jbn'J  muss  die  Bedeu- 
tung"Zutritt"haben;c/.  Jer.  30:21.— For  r]Z^^n  p5<n  (4:7), 
LXX.  probably  reads  nHJll''  'pi^n,  as  Schleusner  supposed,  and 
renders  rov  XiOov  r^s  KXrjpovofjiias.  Vulg.  translates  "lapidem  pri- 
marium,"  and  Pesh.  also  has  Jifl^n;*'"!  ^(S^^D .  rTiTU^in  is  rendered 
by  Aquila  rov  Trpwrevovra,  by  Symmachus  rov  uKpov,  and  by  Theodo- 
tion  Tov  TrpCjTov.  Targ.  gives  the  interpretation,  T'l^J^T  nTl'^'iZJ'/J  tV 
■p7jTpb/J  n^7J123 .  Weighing  all  these  translations,  we  must  reject 
the  LXX.  reading  and  adopt  the  Heb.  as  the  original,  though 
it  is  very  difficult. —  fib  "jn  "jm  tlli^'^rri  (4:7)  is  also  very  difficult. 
LXX.  seems  to  have  derived  the  word  nii^'Xr^  from  niTU,  and 
renders  laorrp-a  x^Ri^to^  x^^/^'™  aur^s.  This  is  followed  by  Aquila's 
i$i(Tu)aeL  xap'7-os,  and  the  Vulg.  "exaequabit  gratiani  gratiae  eius." 
Symmachus  gives  irpos  X'^^P'-^  avr^s;  Theodotion  offers  KaraTravo-i?, 
KarciTrauo-ts  avrfj ;  Pesh.  has  i<"2nTTl  i<ri Wu;T .  These  translations 
sufficiently  testify  to  the  helpless  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
Wellhausen:  "Der  Sinn  der  letzten  Worte  des  Verses  lasst  sich 
nur  muthmassen." — LXX.  renders  D'^titSTo^/J  (4:10)  by  ol  iin- 
/8Ac7rovTC9,  and  this  is  followed  by  the  Syriac  *pTI .  But  better  is 
the  Vulg.  "  discurrunt,"  which  is  adopted  in  the  English  Version. 

*  See,  however,  Wellhausen,  loc.  cit.  174,  and  Isa.  37: '29. 
t  Wellhausen,  loc.  cit,  174,  suggests  TQ^  (c/.  3:5). 


The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8  23 

—  For  nrrbTQ  (4: 12),  LXX.  seems  to  have  read  D^by/J.— For 
ni'^D  (5:3),  LXX.  reads  either  ni7jb  or  nT35,  and  renders  Iws 
eavoLTov.  This,  however,  may  be  due  to  the  omission  of  the  final 
n  in  the  original  MSS.  Tischendorf's  text  omits  the  second 
ni"25 .  Vulg.  has  "  sicut  ibi  scriptum  est "  for  the  first  HTJj  T\V2  , 
and  "ex  hoc  similiter"  for  the  second.     Wellhausen:   probably 

read    HtlD   HT/J    (=  JOaa  )    "since    how    long."— For   1i<CD  b:? ^ 

(6:13),  LXX.  gives  (koI  carat  upeW)  iK  Se^iwv  avTov.  Wellhausen, 
179,  proposes  to  read  ir"r-^.— For  TOU^H  (7:3),  LXX.  seems 
to  have  read  rO  ^53 ,  as  Wright  suggests,  and  renders  datX-oXvdev 

^£. For  Tl"J"-T  "t^ZlV:    (8:15),  LXX.    gives  TrapaTcVay/Aat   Kal   8uiV£- 

vo-qfioi.     Wright's   suggestion  that  the  translator  read  ^rQ^JH   is 

plausible. Dj^^^'ITZ  (8:16)    is   supported    by    all    versions    but 

Targ.,  which  seems  to  have  read  Dm^>'n,  and  renders  "prrpn. 
—  For  n-'^y  "j*J:^1  (8:20),  Vulg.  reads  tT'^SI  ^TiT^I  and  renders 
"et  habitent  in  civitatibus." 

3.  Recensional  variations.— These  are  the  variations  which 
can  be  best  explained  by  supposing  the  translators  to  have  used 
MSS.  more  or  less  different  from  the  MSS.  on  which  our  Masso- 
retic  text  is  based.  Some  of  the  variations  in  this  class  are  to  be 
preferred  to  the  Massoretic  text,  while  others  should  be  rejected. 
We  note  the  following: 

(a)  Errors  made  by  the  copyists  of  the  Hebrew  text.  These 
are  the  deviations  from  the  correct  Hebrew  text,  which  are  solely 
due  to  the  copyists  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  which  were  adopted 
by  the  translators,  (a)  Addition:  For  mn  bs<  (1:4)  LXX. 
reads  THn  bi<V  — For  HIH^  (1:13,  16;  8:17)  LXX.  reads  niH^ 
ni^nil,  Pesh.  following  LXX.  in  1:16  and  8:17.  — For  ^H^n 
(1:16)  LXX.  reads  -n^^V- After  '^'2i^^  (1:6)  LXX.  adds  Trpo? 
airov,  and  is  followed  by  Pesh.  But  other  similar  passages  favor 
the  Hebrew  reading.  (i8)  Omission:  From  Qmnyb  (2:13) 
Pesh.  omits  b.  — In  4:2,  the  KHhibh  T2«^1  must  be  a  copyist's 
error  (Wellhausen,  141).  The  Q're  suits  the  context  better, 
and  is  found  in  many  MSS.,  LXX.,  Itala,  Vulg.,  Targ.  and  Pesh. 
—  From  ^ni<  \:):!r^  (6:8)  LXX.  omits  ^ni<,  and  in  this  is  followed — ^ 
by  Pesh.  — For  1i^2  (6:10)  LXX.,  Pesh.  and  Targ.  (in  London..^^ 
Polyglot)  read  J^n.  — From  6:12,  LXX.  and  Pesh.  omit  T^J^b  in— ^ 
both  cases.  — ni5<n'::   (7:4)  is  omitted  in  some  Codd.,  Targ.  and 


24  The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8 

Pesh.— (y)  Repetition:  For  nyTCl  m^T::  (4:2)  LXX.  and 
Vnlg.  read  simply  JlS^Q^  .  We  are  either  to  take  these  words 
distributively,  or  perhaps  better  to  regard  the  second  as  a  mere 
repetition  by  mistake  of  the  first  (so  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Henderson). 
Kohier  and  Wright  conjecture  that  there  are  two  sets  of  seven 
pipes  each.  Briggs  favors  this  view.  But  this  interpretation 
does  not  seem  to  be  more  natural  than  to  regard  the  second  T'\$'2'^ 
as  a  copyist's  error.  (Wellhausen,  176-7). —  (8)  Explanatory 
or  marginal  glosses,  which  crept  into  the  text:  For  ITTIlb  (1:1) 
Vulg.  reads  "jb'-in  u^Vmb  ,  as  in  Hag.  1:1  and  15.  —  After  ^IX'^'l 
(1:6)  LXX.  adds  h  irucvfjiaTt  fxov.  This  may  have  been  copied 
from  7:12. — After  min  r!5<   (2:4)  LXX.  adds  Kat  rov  'lo-pa^X  kut- 

€a^av.— After  D^nlt:  D^l>'7jbl   (8:19)   LXX.  gives  Kal  evcj^pavOijaeaee. 

—  (e)  Changes  made  hy  the  copyists  to  avoid  difficulties  or  ambi- 
guities: For  IllHK  (1:6)  some  Codd.  and  Theodotion  have  vfiiv. — 
For  DXinn  ^"2  (1:8)  LXX.  seems  to  have  read  *D^"^nri  '^1  and 
renders  ava.  fitaov  twv  ^vo  Spiiov ;  and  in  this  is  followed  by  the  Arabic. 
Hitzig  thinks  that  the  LXX.  translator  may  have  read  D'^^ilinn. — 
For  "iVlS  ■'in  (2:11)  LXX.  has  ek  2tw)',  which  does  not  suit  the 
context.  Lowe,  however,  compares  this  with  a  similar  mistake  in 
Ezek.  21:15.  — For  "jlns^  (3:4)  LXX.  has  air o v.  Wellhausen,  176, 
proposes  to  read  ini^  .  —  For  J"rin"i;  ("^  =  2)  LXX.  reads  tlT^D  . — 
For  n>'"i''1  (4:9)  some  Codd.,  Vulg.,  Targ.  and  Pesh.  read 
nn^TI  (plur.;  so  Wellhausen,  177).— For  inj^Tl  (5:7)  LXX.  has 
l8ov,  and  Vulg.  "ecce";  Wellhausen,  178,  adopts  ri-iTl  from  LXX. 
text,  or  simply  V  — For  D5/J3>  (8:23)  LXX.  reads  JC:^  in  both 
cases.  Some  copies  have  fiera  (tov  for  the  first,  and  /xera  lixQiv  for 
the  second,  and  Pesh.  is  like  this.  But  Vulg.  and  Targ.  support 
the  Hebrew. —  (C)  Changes  which  cannot  be  easily  accounted 
for:  For  nn^l  (2:16)  Targ.  gives  ^nn^l  and  Pesh.  Xnt::i:i.— 

For  Tuhh   ^'Z'p'^^    (^•'^)   LXX.  gives    koI  lirijiXtTTOv  toS  irope-vtcrOaL,  and^ 
other  copies  koX  i^yrow,  koL  iirelSXeirov  tov  Tropevtadai.    It  is  possible  that 

the  translator  read  llpZ^  .  —  For  Dlb"J:ri  I^HT  (8:12)  LXX.  seems 
to  have  had  a  different  text,  and  gives  rj  Sct^w  dprfvqv.  Wellhausen, 
181,  reads:  lDlb'::n  ^^TJ^  "'i.— For  nnj5  b^?  nni<  ^n^V  libni  (8:21) 
LXX.  gives  the  strange  translation  koI  o-weAeuo-ovrai  KaToiKovvTt^ 
irivTC  TToAcis  CIS  TvoXiv  fxtav.  But  other  copies  have  KaroiKovvres  fxtav 
CIS  fitav. 


The  Text  of  Zechariah  1-8  25 

(b)  The  original  readings  preserved  in  the  ancient  MSS.  used 
by  the  translators.  All  the  recensional  variations  are  not  cor- 
ruptions and  incorrect  readings,  but  some  of  them  are  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  Massoretic  text,  and  seem  to  be  the  original  readings. 
We  mention  the  following: 

In  1:8,  Pesh.  correctly  omits  tlZ^t^  .  —  Before  ny)'0  (1:8) 
LXX.  and  Pesh.  have  the  conjunction  1 .  —  For  ixb'^in  ^bu^  17JH''1 

^2  nmn  (1:9)  Pesh.  gives  ^b  ^/jK^  ^n  bb-r^n  «r.sb-j  i^yj^ .   This  is 

perhaps  to  be  preferred,  in  view  of  the  similar  formulae  in  this  para- 
graph (1:10,  11,  12,  13).  — For  yn^n  (1:11)  LXX.  reads  b^n 
•pJ^n.— In  1:13,  LXX.  adds  1  before  Dr^riD  D^im.  — In2:2 
LXX.  and  Pesh.  read  ^jlv^  fb^  ri?J  .  — In  2:4,  LXX.  omits  n'JXb 
and  gives  tt/dos  /xe  instead.  This  reading  agrees  with  the  form  of  the 
similar  passages  in  1:9;  2:2,  6,  8,  etc.,  and  is  probably  correct. — 
For  niTb  (2:4)  Targ.  seems  to  have  read  iHl^lTb  and  renders  ^2ln "jb. 
This  suits  the  context  remarkably  well,  and  even  adds  a  rhetorical 
force,  and  therefore  I  am  inclined  to  take  it  as  the  original  read- 
ing.—From  1C21  (2:10)  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  Pesh.  omit  the 
conjunction  1.— For  ^b  (2:15)  LXX.  and  Pesh. read  lb  .  —  In  3:1, 
LXX.  and  Vulg.  read  nin^  ^3&<T1.  — For  niH^  ^IZ'HC^  (3:2)  Pesh. 
read  tr\TC  "S^^J  ^'2)lC^  {cf.  Wellhausen,  loc.  cit.,  175).  — For 
■jDI:?  (3:4)  LXX.  reads  yjV.  Wellhausen  considers  Vbi^  ^/JX^I 
"Dl:?  ....  as  a  parenthetical  insertion.  —  For  Dj^bsj^  (4:9)  LXX. 
reads  "j^b^^ .  This  suits  the  context  well,  and  seems  to  be  the 
correct  reading,  though  all  the  other  ancient  versions  favor  the 
Hebrew.  — For  b^  t^^2  (7:2)  LXX.  Targ.,  Pesh.  and  Baer 
read  bxn-'Z  as  one  word.— Before  ^j  (7:10)  LXX.,  Vulg.  and 
Targ.  add  the  conjunction  1.— Before  T^J<b  (8:1)  many  Codd. 
and  Pesh.  read  "'bj^ .  In  spite  of  the  objection  of  the  Massorah 
this  seems  to  be  the  correct  reading  in  view  of  4:8;  6:9;  7:4,  8. 

III. 

VARIATIONS    OF    DOUBTFUL    ORIGIN. 

While  there  are  not  a  few  doubtful  cases  among  the  variations 
which  have  thus  far  been  discussed,  it  is  even  more  true  of  the  varia- 
tions under  this  special  heading,  variations  which  are  extremely 
difficult  to  explain.     Their  origin  may  be  accounted  for  as: 


26  The  Text  or  Zechariah  1-8 

1.  Recensional,  or  a  change  made  hy  the  translator.  For 
instance : 

In  2:4,  Cir^n  tlljip  ini<  is  rendered  by  LXX.  to.  reWapa  Kcpara. 
The  Hebrew  is  to  be  preferred.  —  For  UjTl  (7:2),  part  of  a  proper 
name,  LXX.  has  'Ap/Jeo-eo-ep. 

2.  Eecensional,  or  due  to  the  ca7'elessness  on  the  part  of  the 
translator.     Note  the  following  examples: 

For  nniri"'  (2:4)  LXX.  reads  ninV  — For  ]r2  t^2  (2:14) 
Targ.  reads  ]T:i  T\^2 ,  and  renders  ]TT:  i^rniDD  .  The  translator, 
however,  may  have  been  misled  by  the  usual  scriptio  defectiva  in 
the  original  MSS. 

3.  Recensio7ial,  or  misinterpretation  of  the  translator.    Thus: 
For  TJJil   (3:5)  Vulg.   and  Pesh.   read   n^N^ ,  and,   as  the 

result,  the  former  gives  the  duplicate  statement  that  Joshua  was 
clothed  with  new  garments,  and  both  present  an  unpleasantly 
abrupt  change  from  the  direct  imperative  II^CH  to  the  indirect 
jussive  1'i2""J3"' .  It  is  best  to  follow  the  Heb.  and  Targ.,  and  read 
"l/Ji^^l ,  because  it  suits  the  context  best  and  also  strengthens  the 
contrast  between  "pjjl  and  D'^IUH.  —  For  UrCH  (7:7)  LXX.  gives 
1}  optivri;  Pesh.  seems  to  follow  LXX.  and  renders  ^"iltJ . 

4.  Due  to  the  corruption  of  the  text,  or  an  intentional  change 
made  hy  the  translator.     So  we  have: 

In  1:6,  LXX.  has  an  additional  word  Se'x'cr^c,  which  is  proba- 
bly for  inp ,  as  has  been  suggested;  and  this  reading  may  have 
arisen  from  some  confusion  connected  with  the  word  "^pH  . —  For 
D^13  (8:22)  Targ.  has  "i^jb/J  .  The  translator  may  have  given  his 
interpretation  of  the  original. 

5.  Eecensional,  or  due  to  the  condition  of  the  text: 

For  D^^nDH  (1:5)  Pesh.  read  ^S^nD .  The  absence  of  the 
final  D  in  the  original  text  may  have  misled  the  Syriac  trans- 
lator to  read  ^J^^nD'i  for  ^5<n5n.  — For  inlTT^I  (1:6)  Pesh.  has 
V^'inXV  — For  DHDI  (1:7)  Pesh.  gives  5553^.  — In  2:9,  Pesh. 
omits  nb  and  gives  HlrC  in  its  place. 

GENERAL    OBSERVATIONS. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  some  of  the  explanations  offered 
in  this  thesis  are  far  from  satisfactory.  But,  taking  it  for  granted 
that  most  of  them  are  correct  or  probable,  it  may  not  be  uninter- 


The  Text  of  Zeohariah  1-8  27 

esting  to  observe  some  of  the  characteristic  variations  in  the  dif- 
ferent versions.  Most  of  the  variations  in  the  tense  of  a  verb  are 
found  in  LXX.  The  changes  from  one  part  of  speech  into  another 
are  found  only  in  LXX.  and  Pesh.  Variations  due  to  a  diflPerent 
pointing  are  characteristic  of  LXX.,  but  those  due  to  a  different 
grouping  of  words  are  rare  outside  of  Pesh.  LXX.  has  many 
additions,  but  Pesh,  has  only  a  few,  and  Vulg.  none.  Omissions 
are  most  numerous  in  Pesh.,  and  half  as  many  in  LXX.,  but  very 
rare  in  Vulg.  and  Targ.  Variations  arising  from  a  violation  of 
the  principles  of  Hebrew  syntax  are  found  almost  exclusively  in 
LXX.  Some  explanatory  glosses  are  given  in  Targ.  and  Pesh., 
but  more  in  LXX.  Obscure  rendering  is  a  characteristic  of  Pesh., 
and  too  literal  translation  is  common  in  LXX.  Paraphrase  and 
interpretation  are  abundant  in  Targ.,  but  most  of  the  strange, 
inexplicable  variations  are  found  in  LXX.  Misinterpretations 
are  quite  numerous  in  all  versions,  but  original  readings  are  pre- 
served more  in  LXX.  and  Pesh,  than  in  the  other  versions. 

EMENDATIONS    OF    THE    MASSORETIC    TEXT    ON    THE    BASIS    OF    THE 
ANCIENT    MANUSCRIPTS    AND    VERSIONS, 

1:  8,    Omit  nDtll  with  Pesh,  and  read  D"'p"l^1  following  LXX.  and 
Pesh, 
9.    Read  -bi<  ITJ^^^  ^2  '^J.in  -j5<b:jn  ^^  with  Pesh, 
11.     Read  ynj^H  bjQ,  following  LXX, 
13.    Read  Orjn]  D^^mi  with  LXX, 
15,    Read  tD^XajSIl  with  LXX,  (but  LXX,  a-vfewiridefi^va)  andseeWell- 

hausen,  Kleine  Propheten,  171, 
17,     Read  n^"iy  with  LXX, 
2:   2.     Read  ^:iK  nb5<  t\'2 ,  following  LXX.  and  Pesh. 

4,     Read  ^bs^  for  TiZ'Hd,  following  LXX,;  and  nilTb  for  niTb,  fol- 
lowing Targ, 
10,     Omit  the  conjunction  *!  from  'ICDI ,  (so  also  Wellhausen,  loc.  cit., 
175)  following  LXX,,  Vulg,  and  Pesh,;  and  read  3?a*iH3  with 
several  MSS.,  Vulg,  and  Pesh, 
15,     Read  *|b  for  ^b,  following  LXX,  and  Pesh. 
3:   L     Insert  t^^1T  after  ^SHnVI ,  following  LXX.  and  Vulg. 
2,    Read  niH^  yd'2  ^'1'^''^  with  Pesh, 
4.     Read  yT\'$,  following  LXX.  (so  Wellhausen,  175). 
4:  2.     Read  172J<1  with  the  Q^re;  and  omit  HJ'Sirl  ■ 
9.    Read  'C^^  with  LXX. 


28  The  Text  of  Zechaeiah  1-8 

5:  9.     Kead  ^!l''2D^i2>  following  one  of  Baer's  MSS. 

10.    Read  HDJl  for  tl'Qtl,  following  two  MSS. 
6:  6.     Read  ^5^^"^  with  Ewald.     Wright's  objection  to  this  emendation 
is  not  conclusive. 
10,     Read  n^iQTO  SHi^'-l  with  Baer,  following  some  ancient  Hebrew 
and  Greek  MSS. 

13.  Omit  n^rr  bTti  nx  riDn-^  ^ini,  following  lxx. 

7:  2.     Read  bj^tT'Il  (so  Baer-Delitzsch)  as  one  word,  following  LXX., 
Targ.  and  Pesh. 

10.     Read  nj*!  with  LXX.,  Vulg.  and  Targ. 

13.     Read  ^ni<^p  ^WH^D,  following  Pesh. 
8:  1.     Insert  ''bK  before  1°;2!!<b,  following  many  Codd.  and  Pesh. 

■  9.    Omit  bS^nn  with  Hitzig. 


VITA. 

1,  Eiji  Asada,  was  born  on  the  22d  of  May  1865,  in  a  small  town  called 
Hanaoka  in  the  southern  part  of  Japan.  In  the  Spring  of  my  sixth  year 
I  was  sent  to  a  public  school  at  Tokuyama,  four  miles  from  my  birth- 
place, and  was  graduated  from  the  same  in  July  1879.  Then  I  went  to 
Yamaguchi  High  School,  Hiroshima  High  School  and  Kyoto  High 
School,  from  the  last  of  which  I  was  graduated  in  June  1883.  In  the 
following  Spring  I  entered  the  First  Higher  Middle  College,  Tokyo,  and 
completed  the  Science  course  in  June  1887.  After  having  spent  one 
year  in  the  department  of  Mathematics  in  the  Imperial  University, 
Tokyo,  I  came  to  the  United  States  of  America  in  order  to  take  some 
theological  studies.  In  September  1888  I  entered  the  Theological  Sem- 
inary of  the  Northwestern  University,  Evanston,  III,  and  was  graduated 
from  the  same  in  May  1891  with  the  degree  of  D.B.  While  in  the 
school  of  Theology  I  became  so  interested  in  Semitic  studies  and  Old 
Testament  work  that  I  attended  Professor  Harper's  Summer  school  for 
five  sessions  and  studied  Old  Testament  literature  and  Semitic  lan- 
guages. In  1891-2  I  pursued  the  same  studies  in  New  York  City  under 
Professors  Briggs  and  Brown  at  the  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
and  also  under  Professor  Gottheil  at  Columbia  College.  In  October 
1892  I  entered  the  Graduate  School  of  The  University  of  Chicago, 
and  took  further  studies  in  Semitics  and  the  Old  Testament  for  one 
year  under  Professors  W.  K.  Harper,  Hirsch,  R.  F.  Harper,  Price  and 
Good  speed. 


DATE  DUE 


oecrr% 


CAYLORD 


FRINTEDINU.S.A. 


Stocklon,   Calif. 


w 


'■»■ 


6S1665  .2  A7q 


1   1012^00012  5833 


